M/s Poddar Pigments Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4532/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4311 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, AM ITA NO. 4532/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD. VS. ACIT, RANGE 14 A 283, GROUND FLOOR NEW DELHI OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE I, NEW DELHI - 20 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y.KAKKAR, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 26.7.2010. 2. THIS CASE WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL ON 13.12.2010 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.4.2011 ON THE REQU EST OF LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THIS DATE WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE P ARTIES IN THE OPEN COURT. HOWEVER, ON 19.4.2011 I.E. THE DATE OF HEAR ING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON BOARD, NONE A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BE EN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERE STED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL, HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UNADMITTED/DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA NO. 4532/DEL/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAG E 2 OF 3 M/S PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD. 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS , TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. ITA NO. 4532/DEL/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAG E 3 OF 3 M/S PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESE E IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH APRIL,2011. SD/- SD/- (R.P.TOLANI) (B.C.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED: 19 TH APRIL, 2011 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR // TR UE COPY //